3 ms·

Be careful what you wish for. 25% of Norwegian men never father children, and 15% of Norwegian women too. So in the end men who never father children are being

Be careful what you wish for. 25% of Norwegian men never father children, and 15% of Norwegian women too. So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? The easier, ethical way to increase fertility back is to bring morality back to society. If you make sure your kids are raised near other people like you, you cheat the system that the most advantaged people in society have (better looking, better finances etc). Why isn't the character of a person a valuable trait? It's because people who have those traits take it for granted, and those with other traits want character as a trait to be devalued. Imagine if every man would taught their daughter/son/wife to judge people by their character. Taught that loyalty is a virtue. And then only let their children hang out with people who also value those with character. Current society is bad for men and women. Men who would also want sons? What if your son is ugly? Women who would want both daughter and son? Can they ensure that their son will have a nice life? They cannot. Even if those women/men go for someone with model tier looks, they will likely be less good lookin than them. And someone else will always be better looking than them. Better finances than them. There is no winning for anyone longer term like this. It doesn't matter if you're the richest person. Or the best looking one. Someone must lose in today's game. And if you don't lose today, someone from your descendants will. Why? Humans are intelligent enough to understand these things, and we're likely the end of prime biological evolution. The next step is obviously not humans. What's there to fight for? Nothing. Maybe bear the fruits of the collective hard work ancestors have done? As peter thiel said, competition is for losers. Stop competing in a rat race.

bitcurious 6y ago
> So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? In most Western states, care for the elderly (and especially childless elderly) is funded by the working age professionals, and those need to be born. So unless that 25% doesn't plan on growing old it’s not only moral but essential for them that the other 75% do have kids.
- absolutelyrad 6y ago
  The problem takes care of it's self when those people who cannot have kids' can have because their hard work has value. Because current welfare society over values looks. Undervalues other aspects of humans. This is unethical, and will bite your decedents back in the ass even if it doesn't bite you. You think your so good looking? Imagine if your grand son was in that place where he wasn't that good looking. Would you want him to end up like that? Is that really fair to him. Aren't we supposed to make the world a better place? When we realize that some things are wrong? You're doing every man who does hard work injustice. You can defer the problem by importing women from 3rd world countries, but for how long? Not only is it unethical, but immoral. Remember, no matter how privileged you are, there is no guarantee that your decedents will have the privilege'. Even if you're the most selfish man/woman, it's in your interest to advocate for it. There's no woman/man who is a better human except for their character. We need to put incentives for these traits in humans. Not discourage them.
  - buran77 6y ago
    This particular comment feels more like a rant that's not aimed at anything in particular. But with the previous comment you tried making a clearer point: > So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? Don't those kids grow up, enter the working force and contribute with taxes? Rough math would suggest a father with 2 kids will contribute together via taxes over their lifetimes more than a single person (no kids) would. I'm sure most governments already made the same calculation. If at 50 or 60, when some parents have their offsprings already contributing, they got 2-3 times more than you get from the state (pension, welfare, subsidies, whatever else you can imagine) you'd probably not be happy with the explanation "you contributed alone, they contribute together". If you don't care for contributing for someone else's kid, why would someone else's kid contribute anything for you? This can be taken further with anything that works based on pools of contributions like insurance, pension, schools, public transport, internet, etc. They're all working exclusively because not all contributors actually need to benefit equally from all services. Some need more education, some need more health services, some need more transportation. Trust me, you get plenty of things you didn't pay for.

bitcurious 6y ago

> So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? In most Western states, care for the elderly (and especially childless elderly) is funded by the working age professionals, and those need to be born. So unless that 25% doesn't plan on growing old it’s not only moral but essential for them that the other 75% do have kids.

absolutelyrad 6y ago
The problem takes care of it's self when those people who cannot have kids' can have because their hard work has value. Because current welfare society over values looks. Undervalues other aspects of humans. This is unethical, and will bite your decedents back in the ass even if it doesn't bite you. You think your so good looking? Imagine if your grand son was in that place where he wasn't that good looking. Would you want him to end up like that? Is that really fair to him. Aren't we supposed to make the world a better place? When we realize that some things are wrong? You're doing every man who does hard work injustice. You can defer the problem by importing women from 3rd world countries, but for how long? Not only is it unethical, but immoral. Remember, no matter how privileged you are, there is no guarantee that your decedents will have the privilege'. Even if you're the most selfish man/woman, it's in your interest to advocate for it. There's no woman/man who is a better human except for their character. We need to put incentives for these traits in humans. Not discourage them.
- buran77 6y ago
  This particular comment feels more like a rant that's not aimed at anything in particular. But with the previous comment you tried making a clearer point: > So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral? Don't those kids grow up, enter the working force and contribute with taxes? Rough math would suggest a father with 2 kids will contribute together via taxes over their lifetimes more than a single person (no kids) would. I'm sure most governments already made the same calculation. If at 50 or 60, when some parents have their offsprings already contributing, they got 2-3 times more than you get from the state (pension, welfare, subsidies, whatever else you can imagine) you'd probably not be happy with the explanation "you contributed alone, they contribute together". If you don't care for contributing for someone else's kid, why would someone else's kid contribute anything for you? This can be taken further with anything that works based on pools of contributions like insurance, pension, schools, public transport, internet, etc. They're all working exclusively because not all contributors actually need to benefit equally from all services. Some need more education, some need more health services, some need more transportation. Trust me, you get plenty of things you didn't pay for.